MUST READ...

OCON Docs: Hawaii Ballot Chief...And Grandma...Called Obama To Hawaii In 2008

.
New analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nomination for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 was to visit more than just his sick grandmother. Hawaiian election laws and post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a hearing with Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification from ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional eligibility.

.

by Pen Johannson
Editor, The Daily Pen
Honolulu, Hawaii - At the center of the war over Barack Obama’s illegitimacy as president are a series of deep seated, unanswered questions about the detailed involvement of several municipal employees and officials within the government of the State of Hawaii. From former governor, Linda Lingle’s convenient deniability to former Health Department director, Chiyome Fukino’s intentionally misleading statements about Obama’s vital records. From the blatant dismissive ignorance of Hawaii’s legislature about the difference between "U.S. Citizenship" and "Natural-born citizenship", to the claims by a former Honolulu senior elections office clerk that the State of Hawaii does not possess an original, 1961 Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Obama, the State of Hawaii has emerged as the primary co-conspirator in keeping Obama’s identity a well kept secret from the American people.

Now, however, a new investigation of Hawaii’s Election Commission and the laws used by the state’s Office of Elections to approve or deny candidates for inclusion on presidential ballots raises shocking revelations about the power held by too few unaccountable people. The evidence shows that agents, working within the jurisdiction of state law, opened shadowy legal channels enabling Obama an opportunity usurp presidential power and assault the Constitutional sovereignty of the American people.

Recall, over the past two years, we became familiar with the controversy over the Democratic National Committee’s submittal of two separate sworn Official Certifications of Nomination (OCON) for Barack Obama, containing different legal language. One version of the OCON was sent to the Hawaiian Office of Elections while another version was sent to the other states' Election authorities. Not only was this deceitful and a covert maneuver by Nancy Pelosi and DNC to sneak Obama's unverifiable candidacy onto Hawaii's presidential ballot, it arguably violated Constitutional election law affording each state with the authority to grant or deny candidacy based on their own standards. Most people would never know that this very act enabled the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii to invoke an obscure law and approve Obama's inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot...even though he was not constitutionally eligible to be on the ballot.

The Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) is a legally required document submitted by each party's officials in every state prior to each presidential election. It affords the Chief Elections Officer in each state with the documented legal assurance that the candidates seeking inclusion on their particular state's ballot are indeed certified to be constitutionally eligible to serve the office they seek. The DPH's OCON was submitted to the Hawaiian Election Commission, led by Cronin, for approval of the placement of Barack Obama and Joe Biden on the 2008 Hawaii Presidential Election Ballot.

Compounding this controversy, in August, 2008, only two months before the election, the Democrat Party of Hawaii’s (DPH) chairman, Brian Schatz, now serving as the Lt. Governor of Hawaii, refused to include legally required, explicit language in its sworn Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) that Barack Obama was indeed legally qualified to serve as President under the provision of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, the Democrat Party of Hawaii refused to legally certify Barack Obama as that state’s Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

This was not some prudent effort to prevent the inclusion of an ineligible candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot. As this investigation shows, it was done to protect the political careers of Schatz and the DPH while relying on more inane, anti-constitutional Hawaiian statutes to clear the way for Obama's candidacy.

Former Democrat Party of Hawaii
(DPH) Chairman, Brian Schatz, now serves as the state's Lt. Governor
photo courtesy: hawaii.gov

Here's what happened. An investigation of Hawaii Revised Statutes, along with documented evidence, reveals that the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, Kevin Cronin, being bound by law from partisan participation, still had the legal authority to circumvent the vetting process for Obama and simply approve his placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot without ever verifying that he was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Moreover, the evidence presented herein further confirms that the legal tactics employed by the Obama machine are specifically designed with legal complexity meant to discourage challenges to Obama’s fraudulent occupation of the White House.

The specificity of the following account is somewhat daunting. However, in the interest of seeking the truth sometimes it is necessary to win the battle less fought. In order to set the story up, we need to go into the weeds a little bit, but, remember, the self-serving members of our corrupt ruling-class spend their lives in places the rest of us can’t, or won’t, go.

Therefore, our momentary visit into the plausible serves well the value of our newly found lessons and reinforces the importance for the American people to seize responsibility and proactively protect the sovereignty of their blood-ransomed, Constitutional freedom. Sometimes, in order to accomplish this, we must vigorously deny access to those with plural, or ambigous, allegiances. Casting out the idea peddlers is an essential first step in physically removing influences which undermine the intended goodness of our founders.

BACKGROUND
The election of a President and Vice President in the United States relies on the Electoral College. Within this system, electors are authorized by the U.S. Constitution through their state laws to cast votes which represent their respective states’ popular vote for the appropriate candidates. Article II of the Constitution specifies the number of electors each state is entitled to have and it delegates the authority for nominating and choosing its electors to each state’s legislative body. Some states pick electors by legislative appointment while others employ a nomination and voting process.

Electors from each state are only qualified by the Constitution to cast votes for President and Vice President. They do not participate in certifying the eligibility of the candidates prior to the election. Inexplicably, the certification of each candidate’s eligibility falls under the autonomous authority of each candidate’s state and national affiliated political party authority, while the approval of the candidate’s placement on each state’s ballot then becomes the responsibility of the Chief Elections Officer of each state. The state’s electors must rely on the relationship between these authoritative bodies to review qualifications, certify the legal eligibility of each candidate and approve ballot placement of each candidate nominated by each qualified party.

In August, 2008, the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer (CEO) was Kevin B. Cronin. He was appointed by the eight-member Hawaiian Elections Commission on December 10, 2007 and took over the position from Interim CEO, Rex M. Quidilla. By statute, Cronin’s term began on February 1, 2008 and is set to end on February 1, 2012. Cronin is a 30 year veteran of government service and is licensed to practice law in Hawaii and Wisconsin. The fully staffed Hawaiian Elections Commission is made up of the following individuals.

Name, Position and Date of Term ExpirationKevin B. Cronin, Senior Elections Officer 02/01/12
Daniel Young , Chief Justice, Oahu 06/30/12
Warren Orikasa , House Speaker, Maui 06/30/14
Margaret Masunaga, Senate President, Hawaii 06/30/14
Zale Okazaki , Senate President, Oahu 06/30/12
Patricia Berg , Senate Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14
Brian Nakashima, Chief Justice, Hawaii 06/30/12
Donna Soares, House Minority Leader, Maui 06/30/12
Charles King, House Minority Leader, Kauai 06/30/14

It is Cronin's authority to oversee elections in the state of Hawaii under the advisement of the Election Commission. It is his responsibility to maximize registration, equalize registration among districts; and maintain data related to registration, elections, districting and apportionment; educate the public on voting and elections; set up procedures and rules governing elections per HRS 11, AR 91 and Arts. II & IV of the U.S. Constitution. However, Cronins most powerful authority is his ability, according to HRS 11-113, to officially approve candidates for placement on the state’s ballot even when the state party's vetting authority refuses to certify the legal qualifications of that candidate.

As absurd as this seems...it actually happened in Hawaii in 2008.

THE SCENE OF THE CRIME

On August 27, 2008, the Democratic Party of Hawaii (DPH), led then by Chairman, Brian Schatz and acting Secretary, Lynn Matusow, signed and had attested by notarization, an Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Some time between August 27, 2008 and 4:30 p.m Hawaiian Time (9:30 p.m. Eastern Time) September 5, 2008, the DPH filed the document with Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy provided for public review did not contain a Hawaiian Elections Office "RECEIVED DATE" stamp and it contained the following words in the body of its content:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (Obama and Biden) are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado."

However, Hawaiian Revised Statute 11-113 (c)(1)(B) requires that this statement must explicitly state that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Hawaiian Elections Commission and the Chief Elections Officer to be able to approve the candidate for ballot placement. Specifically, the wording of each party’s Hawaiian OCON must adhere to the requirements of HRS §11-113 (c)(1); Presidential Ballots, which states:

(c) All candidates for president and vice president of
the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under the following procedures:...
...(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;

(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;

(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

The Democratic Party of Hawaii’s OCON for Barack Obama clearly did not meet the requirement of HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), which clearly states that the (DPH) party official (Brian Schatz) shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer (Kevin Cronin) which explicitly includes “…a statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution…” and is to be filed not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day (September 5, 2008) prior to the general election (November 4, 2008).

However, comparing documented evidence of OCONs from previous elections reveals that the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s OCONs for both Al Gore/Joe Lieberman in 2000 and John Kerry/John Edwards in 2004 both had the following identical language:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held in.”

The Democratic Party of Hawaii included the explicit statement required by HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B) that the 2000 and 2004 candidates were legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution, but the DPH did not do the same for Obama. Also, in another comparison, the Hawaiian Republican Party’s 2008 OCON, signed by RPH Chairman, Willes K. Lee, for John McCain and Sarah Palin, states:

“We do hereby certify that at a National Convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the City of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the United States were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008…”

The Republican Party of Hawaii’s Official Certification of Nomination for John McCain and Sarah Palin clearly includes the words “…meeting the Constitutional requirements…” and is dated September 4, 2008, and is notarized by Sheila Rae Motzko, notary of Minnesota. Therefore, the RPH obviously had no reservations in certifying the eligibility of McCain and Palin.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC), chaired by Nancy Pelosi, signed and had attested by notarization, its national Official Certification of Nominations with all fifty states on August 28th, 2008. We conclude this based on the "RECEIVED DATE" stamp provided on multiple states' DNC OCONs and the notarization date of August 28. This sworn application was filed sometime between August 28, 2008 and September 5, 2008 with the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy provided by the Hawaiian Election office for public review does not contain a RECEIVED DATE stamp like other states' OCONs do.

However, a review of the Democratic National Committee’s OCONs for Obama reveals a shocking irregularity in the composition of its Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii. On December 19, 2008, Hawaii’s Chief Elections officer, Kevin Cronin, in response to a written request by a Colorado resident for a copy of the Official Certification of Nominations, sent a letter and a copy of the DPH’s OCON and the DNC’s OCON. However, analysis of the DNC OCON sent to Hawaii in comparison with the DNC’s OCON sent to other states, reveals that they did not match. In fact, Hawaii’s version of the DNC’s OCON contained specific wording not included in the versions sent to ALL the other states, which directly contradicts the Democrat Party of Hawaii's OCON. All the states' Election Commissions, except for Hawaii's, were sent one Official Certification of Nomination with the following statement:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively”

The typo “though” is not a mistake. It actually exists in the official document. Notice, in this version of the DNC’s OCON, there is no mention of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. However, in the version sent separately to Hawaii’s Election Commission, it states the following:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:”

The inclusion of the specific language previously omitted by the DPH's OCON indicates nothing less than a conspiracy on the part of the DNC and the DPH to force a confirmation of Barack Obama’s eligibility by the state of Hawaii, without actually verifying it. The DNC amended its Hawaiian OCON for specifically for Obama as a means of creating a direct contradiction with DPH’s legitimate omission of legal language which, if included, would certify Obama’s constitutional eligibility in accordance with Hawaiian law.

The obvious crime in this intentional dissemination of misinformation is that if the DPH was unable to verify Obama’s eligibility, the DNC would have also not been able to verify it. Why would the DNC not share its verification documentation of Obama's candidacy with the Democrat Party of Hawaii's official? If the DNC was actually able to verify Obama's eligibility, the DPH would have also acquired the same documentation to verify it. If the eligibility of Obama candidacy was provable and verifiable, both party authorities would have included the same appropriate language in accordance with Hawaiian law. Hawaiian law also allowed for seven more days from the dates appearing on both OCONs to be filed if more time was needed for the DPH and the DNC to corroborate the verification of Obama's eligibility.

Also, if the original version of the DNC's OCON had been authored with language confirming Obama's constitutional eligbility, the DNC had no rational motive for submitting two different versions. The inclusion of such language only reinforces perception of Obama's eligibility in every state. Therefore, the submittal of different documents indicates an act of deception on the part of Nancy Pelosi and the DNC in an effort to contradict the Democrat Party of Hawaii's OCON.

This contradiction was intentional because the very presence of this conflict activates a series of lawful empowerments to the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to make autonomous decisions about ballot content.

HRS 11-113 (1)(d) provides that “…Each applicant and the candidates named, shall be notified in writing of the applicant's or candidate's eligibility or disqualification for placement on the ballot not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth business day after filing. The chief election officer may extend the notification period up to an additional five business days, if the applicants and candidates are provided with notice of the extension and the reasons therefore.”

The DPH filed the OCON as late as September 5, 2008. This means that, if Cronin granted the optional five business day extension to the mandated 10 day notification deadline, the notification could have been provided to Obama in writing a maximum of September 26, 2008.

HRS 11-113 (1)(e) then provides that “…(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question.”

Therefore, if Cronin notified Obama that he was not qualified to be placed on the ballot in Hawaii, this means that Obama had until approximately October 6, 2008 to respond in writing and request a hearing.

HRS 11-113(1)(e) then provides that “…A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91.”

Cronin would have received Obama's request sometime around October 6th or 7th, 2008. Based on HRS 11-113(e), the latest Cronin was legally able to schedule a hearing for Obama was sometime between October 20th and 23rd, 2008.

Moreover, Hawaii Revised Statute, Administrative Rules, Chapter 91-9 (d), Contested Cases; notice, hearing; records states: “Any procedure in a contested case may be modified or waived by stipulation of the parties and informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default.”

Essentially, this HAR allows Obama to request a reasonable modification of procedure in order to accommodate a reasonable schedule and effort needed to attend a contesting hearing. Therefore, Obama could have have sought extra time after the hearing began in order to accommodate a pressing personal matter…like a sick grandmother.

Where was Obama around October 20th, 2008? On Monday, October 20, 2008, Reuters reported:

“Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will leave the campaign trail to go to Hawaii this week to visit the ailing grandmother who helped raise him, an aide said on Monday.

Recently his grandmother has become ill and in the last few weeks her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious," said Obama aide Robert Gibbs.

Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who will be 86 on Sunday, helped raise him along with his mother, Ann Dunham, and his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Gibbs would not discuss the nature of her illness.

The candidate is canceling events in Madison, Wisconsin, and Des Moines, Iowa, that had been scheduled for Thursday. He instead will go to an event in Indianapolis, Indiana, on Thursday, then fly to Hawaii to see his grandmother. He will return to the campaign trail on Saturday, Gibbs said."

Was Obama present in Hawaii during the time when a hearing was conducted with the Hawaiian Elections Commission regarding his disqualification from the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot?

Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113(b) then gave Cronin the legal right to choose to include Barack Obama, an uncertified, unverified and, therefore, ineligible presidential candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot. HRS 11-113(b) states:

b) A "national party" as used in this section shall mean a party established and admitted to the ballot in at least one state other than Hawaii or one which is determined by the chief election officer to be making a bona fide effort to become a national party. If there is no national party or the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may determine which candidates' names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the candidates' names off the ballot completely.
Within the legal prose of this corrupt Hawaiian law lies the permission for the Chief Elections Officer (Kevin Cronin) of Hawaii to include the name of an ineligible candidate (Barack Obama) on the Hawaiian presidential ballot when the state party authority (DPH, chair Brian Schatz) and the national party authority (DNC, chair Nancy Pelosi) do not agree on the eligibility of the candidate. As we know, Obama appeared on the Hawaiian presidential ballot indicating that Cronin acted alone in approving Obama's candidacy for ballot placement. SUMMARY
A comparison of the DNC's OCON sent to Hawaii with the OCONs sent to every other state reveals a conspiracy to conceal Obama's ineligibility. Notice the statement added to the Hawaiian document in order to make it compliant with HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B), after it was discovered the DEMOCRAT PARTY OF HAWAII refused to include the legally required language enabling Hawaii's Chief Elections Officer to approve of Obama's inclusion on the Hawaiian Presidential Ballot.
Any conflict among party authorities over candidate eligibility allows the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer the autonomous choice whether or not to include the candidate on the ballot anyway, per HRS 11-113(b), which Cronin did, regardless if that candidate is proven eligible or not. Cronin is not obligated to verify eligibility per HRS 11-113.
This indicates a crime. If the original OCON had contained the amended statement prior to being signed, it would have been left in the body of the statement for ALL the OCONs received by all the states. There is no rational motive for the DNC to omit this statement post-signing because it only reinforces allegations by Obama and the DNC that he is eligible in every state. Which he is not, at least we know, in Hawaii. The fact that it only appears in Hawaii's OCON indicates a cover-up.
The lack of a "RECEIVED DATE" stamp on the DNC's Hawaiian OCON, which is present on other state's version, also prevents an accurate determination of the latest possible date on which Cronin was able to schedule a CONTEST HEARING with Obama after finding Obama uncertified by the DPH. Obama would not have wanted to give the appearance of dealing with an ineligibility issue so close to the election, but he also would not want to allow anyone to know their was a legal problem with his inclusion on the ballot so near the date when Hawaii received the Certifications of Nomination there. Cronin was permitted to record his receipt of the OCON as late as Sept. 5, 2008, 60 days prior to the election, which would have allowed the hearing to begin sometime between October 10, 2008 and October 24, 2008, after exhausting the legally permitted time and personal allowances in the process for scheduling according to HRS 11-113(d) and (e).
Obama cancelled several campaign appointments, just weeks before the election, and suddenly traveled to Hawaii on October 21, 2008 without his family.
This documented evidence, in coordination with actions by the Democrat party's authorities and the actions of the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer in coordination with the provisions of Hawaiian election law and Obama's behavior in coordination with the events of the campaign, his personal life, and his lack of constitutional eligibility to be president all leave little doubt that the election of Obama occurred extralegally and outside the limits of constitutional legitimacy.
By undermining the provisions of the constitution, Barack Obama has injured the American people by illegally circumventing their right to the protections against domestic threats and ineligible usurpation of their sovereign liberties, which include the right of trust and confidence in those presenting themselves as legitimate candidates for government office.
The fact that very specific, and rational questions remain unanswered about Obama's past, including the actions by officials working within the government agencies of the State of Hawaii, reveals nothing less than a web of legally knitted deception in order to conceal the obviousness of Barack Obama complete lack of Constitutional standing to be President of the United States. As such, Obama's entire Presidency has been built on an epic lie of such grand proportions no remedy remains except that which can only come from the common-men and descendants of our vintage American founders.


REVIEWING THE FACTS

1. Electors from each state rely on each party’s state authority in that state to certify the nomination of their candidates and verify their legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

2. Hawaiian election law specifically requires each state’s party authority to file a sworn application (Official Certification of Nomination) with Hawaii’s Chief Elections Officer certifying the eligibility of each candidate to serve as President and Vice President of the United States.

3. Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113 (c) specifically requires that this sworn application from each state party authority contains explicit language stating that all candidates are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Chief Elections Officer to approve the candidate for placement on the state’s presidential ballot.

4. On August 27th, 2008, by notary attestment, authorities of the Democrat Party of Hawaii (DPH) signed a sworn Official Certification of Nomination and was required to submit the document to Hawaii's Chief Election Officer, Kevin Cronin before 4:30 p.m. on September 5, 2008.

5. The DPH, chaired by Brian Schatz, refused to include legally required language, per HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), within the state party’s Official Certification of Nomination stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

6. The Democrat Party of Hawaii included this legally required language for other Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates in past elections dating to, at least, 2000 and 2004. Therefore, the omission of this language within the DPH’s 2008 OCON of Obama’s candidacy is not a mistake or an oversight. It was done intentionally and with full understanding of Brian Schatz that the Hawaiian CEO, Kevin Cronin, would not be legally permitted to approve Barack Obama as a candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot, unless the Democratic National Committee (the national party authority) included this language in its OCON.

7. The Republican Party of Hawaii included the legally required language in its sworn 2008 Official Certification of Nomination for John McCain and Sarah Palin, per HRS 11-113, without reservation or exceptions.

8. The Democrat Party of Hawaii refused to acknowledge that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as president under the provisions of U.S. Constitution and, therefore, the DPH refused to provide legal certification allowing the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to approve the placement of Barack Obama on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.

9. Since the DPH did not provide legal certification of Barack Obama's constitutional candidacy, Kevin Cronin, was required to send a written notice to Barack Obama informing him that the DPH refused to provide legal certification of his candidacy for approval of his inclusion on the State of Hawaii’s 2008 presidential ballot. Cronin was legally required to send this notification within 10 business days from the time Cronin received the OCON from the DPH. Cronin also had the option, under HRS 11-113, to extend the notification deadline five more business days for a total of 15 days from the day the DPH filed the OCON.

10. The DPH's OCON is dated August 27th, 2008. However, HRS 11-113 provides that OCONs may be filed by 4:30 p.m. on no less than the 60th day prior to the day of the election. In this case, based on the alleged date appearing the DPH's OCON, the DPH still had eight more days to file the OCON and perhaps request verification documentation from Obama. Therefore, Obama received his notification of the Hawaiian CEO's findings no later than September 20, 2008.

11. However, documents provided by the Hawaiian Election Commission show that the Democratic National Committee, chaired by Nancy Pelosi, signed its 2008 Official Certification of Nomination with a date of August 28, 2008. However, documented evidence shows that the DNC also authored a separate version of its OCON at a later time. One version was sent only to Hawaii containing specific wording which directly contradicted that state party’s Constitutional authority to declare that Barack Obama was not constitutionally eligible to serve as President and was, therefore, not approved for inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.

12. Article IV-Section 4, Article IV-Section 1 and Article II-Section 1 of the Constitution grants sovereignty for certifying a candidate’s nomination and approving a candidate’s inclusion on each state’s presidential ballot to each state. The Democratic National Committee does not have the legal authority to supersede the sovereignty of Hawaii’s appointed authority to conduct election, approve ballot content and certify the nomination of candidates.

13. By intentionally contradicting the findings of Hawaii’s party authority for the purpose of forcing the state of Hawaii to include Obama’s candidacy on its ballot, the Democratic National Committee, headed by Nancy Pelosi, committed election fraud and violated the Constitutional right of the people of the state of Hawaii to an election process in which supreme power is held by the citizens and their entitlement to vote for Constitutionally eligible candidates.

14. The Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii’s Chief Elections Officer by the DNC was not sent to any other state’s CEO.

15. Based on the authority given them by the Constitution, some states’ election laws do not require an explicit statement indicating a candidate’s legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the Constitution, like Hawaii, but rather a general statement citing documentation that the candidate is qualified under federal law to serve as President and Vice President.

16. The DNC sent a different OCON to every other state omitting the reference to Constitutional eligibility.

17. Cronin sent written notification to Obama stating that Obama was found legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution based on the DNC’s OCON.

18. The Democratic Party of Hawaii and the Democratic National Committee do not agree with one another about the Constitutional qualifications of Barack Obama.

19. Cronin’s notifications have never been revealed to the public.

20. If the notification from Cronin to Obama stated that Obama was found not qualified to be on the Hawaiian ballot, Obama had five business days after the finding to send a written request for a hearing to contest the finding and reconcile his lack of eligibility with the DPH.

21. Upon receiving a request for a hearing from Obama, Cronin was obligated to schedule the hearing within 10 business days of receiving the request.

22. Hearings to contest candidate eligibility findings are conducted under Administrative Procedures governed by HRS AR 91.

23. AR 91 allows a petitioner for a hearing to request reasonable scheduling accommodations in order to attend the hearing based on travel, personal matters and/or financial issues.

24. The hearing would have been conducted around mid to late October, 2008.

25. Barack Obama’s grandmother was reported to have become gravely ill in early to mid October, 2008.

26. Barack Obama was in Hawaii in mid October, 2008. The American public was told that his only business there was to visit with his ill grandmother.

27. Obama went to Hawaii, suddenly, without his wife and children, even though Dunham's condition was reported to have been expectedly declining for several weeks, during which, at any time, Obama could have otherwise scheduled a planned visit. The exclusion of Dunham's great-grandchildren and Michelle Obama during this visit is odd. Madelyn Dunham did not pass away for two more weeks after Obama's visit having never been visited by Obama's family in her final months.

27. HRS 11-113 (b) states: If there is no national party or the national and state parties…do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may determine which candidates' names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the candidates' names off the ballot completely.

28. Barack Obama was included on the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot.

QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS

QUESTION 1: Why, after including the legally required language for previous Democratic candidates in elections past, did chairperson, Brian Schatz and the Democrat Party of Hawaii, refuse to include the legally required language upon submitting it for the approval of that state party’s 2008 Official Certification of Nomination when they submitted it to Kevin B. Cronin and the Hawaiian Election Commission?

QUESTION 2: Did Kevin Cronin, Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer in 2008, approve the placement of Barack Obama’s name on the presidential ballot for the 2008 federal election, in spite of the fact that explicit language stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to run for president was omitted from the Official Certification of Nomination submitted by the Democrat Party of Hawaii?

QUESTION 3: Did Kevin Cronin, Chief Elections Officer, in coordination with the Hawaiian Election Commission, and HRS 11-113 (1)(d), notify Barack Obama in writing, of his eligibility or disqualification for placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot and what date did he provide this notification?

QUESTION 4: If a notice of disqualification was sent to Obama, upon receiving this notice from the Hawaiian Elections Commission, did Barack Obama file a request, per HRS 11-113 (1)(e), in writing to Mr. Cronin and what date did he submit this request?

QUESTION 5: Did Cronin schedule Obama to a hearing and what date was this hearing scheduled?

QUESTION 6: Where was Obama between October 20th and 24th, 2008?

QUESTION 7: Was Obama present in Hawaii during the time when a hearing was conducted with the Hawaiian Elections Commission regarding his disqualification from the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot?

QUESTION 8: Why did the Democratic National Committee author two separate Official Certifications of Nomination for Barack Obama, sending one version to Hawaii but not the other 49 states?

QUESTION 9: Did The DNC send two separate versions of its OCON to the Hawaiian Election Commission, and if so, why did it do this?

QUESTION 10: What secret evidence, which was obviously not accessible to the Democrat Party of Hawaii (the very state Obama was born in), did Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National Committee acquire to determine Barack Obama’s legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and, thereby, include such language in its OCON?

QUESTION 11: When it was determined that the state and national party authorities of the Democratic Party did not agree on the status of Barack Obama’s eligibility, did the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, Kevin Cronin, determine to include Obama on the Hawaii presidential election ballot with authority provided by HRS 11-113(b).
QUESTION 12: What documented evidence was used by the DNC, which was not available to the Democrat Party of Hawaii, to determine that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution?

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

50 REASONS AMERICA SHOULD REEXAMINE OBAMA’S PAST

by Penbrook Johannson
Editor, The Daily Pen
If the American people are ever blessed to have Obama's secret biography deliberated by an unbiased authority, with higher intelligence, the following will have to be addressed on the merits of legitimacy.

1. The Definition of “Natural-Born Citizenship”. The U.S. Constitution requires that a presidential candidate be a Natural-Born Citizen in order to be eligible for the office of President.

In seeking to define the meaning of "natural born citizenship", those who support Obama take a minimalist view of the term. They desire to assume jurisdiction over its definition in the minds of as many as possible contending that "natural born citizenship" means the fewest, most remedial natal circumstances possible which will allow Obama just enough legitimacy to be eligible. Their definition allows Obama to merely meet what they consider the most easily argued characteristics of Obama's citizenry, in this case, his birth place.

However, the purposed intent of our founders was not so slight in this matter. They sought to make the meaning of being a Natural born citizen the highest, most laudable position of all forms of citizenry. All arguments seeking to diminish this truth are reprobate and defamatory, made in the interest of serving one's own political lust, not defending the sovereignty of our Constitution or people. Hence, logically, our founders induced that the highest form of eligibility for the highest office would be a lawful mandate.

Consider the following:

Taking survey of all possible circumstances
which, therefore, lend credibility to one's claim to legitimacy, and thereby,
eligibility to lead, there is much more to consider than simply one's location
of birth. In order to meet the highest standard intended by our founders, we
must also consider that biology must also meet this standard.
Not only is it essential that a presidential candidate be born under the
sovereign geographic protection of our Constitution, he must also be conceived
by two parents of native citizenry, possessing U.S. citizenship.

Moreover, let's consider further extension of this ideal
by commanding that a presidential candidate also be conceived
legitimately within the bounds of legal marriage of their parentage. Having been
measured and found wanton, those subservient to bias for persons over their
respect for the office would not embrace this noble ideal. For them,
uplifting the standard of the presidency remains an inferior cause to
diminishing the requirements in order to provide access for their inferior candidate. Therefore, they seek to minimize the standard, not maximize the person. Of course, this would disqualify many from being the President...as so it should!

However, let's not even stop there. We should also
assume that our founders sought to ensure that a presidential candidate had also preserved their Natural-born citizenship from "conception to
election", never having allowed it to be revoked, or never having it revoked
even against their will. For, even those who lose their eligibility to no fault
of their own should bear up in faith that this is the intention of higher power,
sacrificing for the sake of sovereignty of the office rather than opportunity
for the man!

Let all of these metrics define the standards of
Natural-born citizenship in America. Bannish minimalism and seek the highest
mark in the spirit of exceptionalism forged by our forefathers! Hold this mantle
lest that crown be stolen by any upon the earth without seeking the interests of
God and country first! Daringly and boldly, let these marks serve as the highest
definition of humanity's advanced citizenship and the prescribed metrics for
eligibility to be President of the U.S.!

We should set a higher bar, not lower it. It is impossible to choose one's own Natural-born citizenship because it is preeminent and incumbent to one's birth. Historical writings, along with related legal precedents strongly suggest this form of citizenship is achieved when natural circumstances make it impossible for that individual to have any citizenship or allegiances other than with the United States at the time they are elected as President. Research of America's founding culture reveals that a very heavy emphasis was placed on legitimacy at birth. Therefore, it is probable that one's most authentic degree of Natural born identity does not occur at birth, but at conception. With this in mind, we must consider that the framers of the Constitution assumed it was commonly understood that the definition of "Natural-born citizenship" for a presidential candidate to mean a citizenship status that was not just acheived by the event of birth but that it was a maintained status from "conception to election" in order to qualify a sovereign candidate. This is the most complete definition of Natural born citizenship possible. There is no other degree of more complete natural circumstances which can establish the status of one's existence.

Therefore, theoretically, Natural-born citizenship, in its purest, ineradicable form, could be measured by three metrics: 1.) Biological conception by two U.S. citizen parents, 2.) birth in a geographic region under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and 3.) maintenance of that citizenship status without any unnatural interruption of parentage, legal process or administrative procedure.

This means that their citizenship has never been achieved by any legal or administration process at or after birth. Dual citizens and expatriates are not Natural-Born Citizens. Those who lose their Natural-born status by taking the citizenship of another country or denouncing their Natural Born U.S. citizenship cannot regain it. A Natural-born citizen is one who was born within a geographic region under the protections of the U.S. Constitution AND to two U.S. citizen parents, they being either natural-born or legally naturalized through immigration or repatriation. Despite ongoing, unanswered questions about his geographic origins, Obama does not meet the requirements to be a Natural-Born citizen for two possible other reasons: 1.) because his alleged biological father, Barack Obama Sr., was not a U.S. Citizen and 2.) he was adopted by his muslim, Indonesian step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in the mid 1960s thereby taking Indonesian citizenship, thus forfeiting Natural-born status.

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..."
2. The Suddenness of Obama. The American public was essentially made nationally aware of Barack Obama following his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. Obama’s emergence into national politics was not a gradual inception. It was a sudden, covert ascendance to power seemingly assisted by foreign-like forces as an assault on vintage American conscience.

Obama was elected to the U.S. Congress as a Democratic senator from Illinois in November, 2004, after his candidacy was promoted in the state by a vastly corrupt, liberal, Chicago-based political cartel and a conglomeration of burned-out, 1960's, radicals like Bill Ayers and Madeline Talbott. Then despite his lack of executive experience, in February, 2007, after only two years of serving at the federal level, Obama announced his candidacy for the 2008 Presidential election defeating Hillary Clinton, a 17-year veteran of federal politics and former First Lady, for the Democratic Party Nomination. Obama went on to then defeat John McCain, a decorated war veteran and a 34-year seasoned expert in federal politics as a longstanding Arizona senator, having been elected by a bowing consensus of ashamed white liberals, Bush-hating radicals and angry, racist minorities seeking reparative justice.

By all observable metrics, Obama should have been considered nothing but a long shot to contend for the DNC nomination. Instead, he defied these odds and even his own advice when, in 2005, he said, “In order to run for president, a person needs to know what they are getting into…I am not confident I have that experience yet.”

3. The Foundations of Natural Born Citizenry. When the founders of America wrote the Constitution, they included the “Natural-born” mandate in order to ensure that no President would be subject to, or exercise, a plurality of political interests in their international relationships. Having experienced the corruption of a monarchy in Great Britain for generations, the founders of America, after declaring and defending their right to freedom from that corruption during the Revolutionary War, wrote the constitution within the legal framework of empowering inalienable rights and protection of the American people, not empowering the government. Upon declaring independence from the crown, after seeing the destructive consequences of an intermingling of international loyalty through forced Royal intermarriage, in-breeding, monarchal polytheism, power sharing, birthright subversion and support of covert insurrections of inferior nations, the founders made it a law that any President had to be a Natural-born citizen.

4. Logan Act Violated By Obama. With this mind, we learned, in October, 2008, that American author and columnist, Jerome Corsi was arrested while visiting Kenya during an investigation which revealed that Barack Obama had actively campaigned for and contributed money to Kenya’s Democratic Socialist Orange Party candidate, Raila Odinga, from 2006 to 2008. Corsi had traveled to Kenya and acquired correspondence and documented evidence showing that Odinga, a fellow Luo tribe descendant and alleged paternal cousin of Obama, had entered into a written agreement with the National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF), a highly influential and radical Kenyan Islamic foundation, seeking Odinga’s support for, among other things, Sharia Law, in exchange for the Islamic group’s support of Odinga’s candidacy. The evidence acquired by Corsi also shows that Obama was aware of this agreement even while he was raising more than a million dollars of American money to support Odinga’s campaign. The Orange Party Movement is the communist opposition party to President, Mwai Kibaki’s Party of National Unity (PNU). Obama’s involvement in the Kenyan election, while an elected official of the U.S., was clearly a violation the Logan Act which prohibits American politicians from influencing or participating in foreign elections. The Obama Administration’s U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has refused to pursue any investigation of Obama’s activities with Odinga in Kenya in 2006 until 2008. In 2008, video of Obama’s speeches on behalf of Odinga surfaced on YouTube and several other websites which clearly show Obama stumping for Odinga. In the aftermath of the December, 2007 election, which Odinga lost, the Orange party leadership and members of Kenya’s Luo tribe incited violence among his radical constituents. Kenyan Muslims engaged in a week long violent demonstration in which they burned nearly 1000 Christian churches and murdered almost 1000 of Odinga’s political opposition which are members of the predominantly Christian, Kikuyu tribe. Under the threat of this violence, with the support of Obama and the Bush administration, the Kenyan majority PNU Party was forced to take an unprecedented action in the history of its government by artificially amending its constitution in order to create a leadership position for Odinga who was ensconced as the country’s first Prime Minister in April, 2008. The tragic events and violence of the 2007 Kenyan election were the exact consequences the founders of America were trying to prohibit U.S. government officials from instigating or being influenced by. Obama’s geopolitical connections, along with his probable biological relationship with the Kenyan Communist party, now an active part of the Kenyan government, creates a relationship vulnerable to illicit influence. Obama has now brought that illicit relationship, and all of its consequences, with him into the office of the U.S. Presidency. The founders wisely understood that the mandate of Natural born citizenry for a President is the best possible protection against such vulnerability.

5. Suspicious Nomination Certifications. In July, 2009, documents were revealed showing that Obama was never officially certified to run for president under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, by the Hawaiian Democratic Party. On August 27, 2008, the Hawaiian Democratic Party created a customized Nomination Certification document for Obama containing the following words:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado."

In comparison, unlike the 2008 Hawaiian OCON for Obama, in every other previous Presidential election, the Hawaiian Democratic Party has certified the nomination of their state's Democratic candidate with the following words:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the United States Constitution..."

Notice that the wording of HDP's 2008 Official Certification of Nomination omits the words "...under the provision of the United States Constitution..."

Upon receiving Hawaii's State Nomination Certification for Obama, which omits the reference to the Constitutional legality of Obama's nomination, the National Democratic Party Office created two separate documents with the same header title, "Official Certification of Nomination", both versions were signed by Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the Democratic National Convention, and Alicia Travis Germond, Secretary of the Democratic National Convention and notarized by a Denver notary. One of these versions was sent from the National Democratic Party headquarters to each of the 49 states' Democratic Party headquarters. However, only the State of Hawaii received an Official Certification of Nomination from the DNC containing the words:

"...the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States

are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution..."

The document then lists Barack Obama and Joe Biden as the candidates. However, the rest of the 49 states received a different Official Certification of Nomination containing the words:

"...the following were duly nominated as candidates of said party for President and Vice

President of the United States, respectively..."

Why was the state of Hawaii's local Democratic Party headquarters sent a different OCON document from the National Party headquarters than the other 49 states?

There is strong evidence suggesting that Hawaii's local Democratic Party officials refused to certify Obama's nomination as being Constitutionally eligible and, therefore, required that the National Party office take responsibility for declaring the eligibility of his nomination under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, even though his eligibility had never been vetted. This has never happened in the history of America’s vetting endorsement process and indicates that the Democratic National Party leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, was made aware that there was a legal problem with Obama's candidacy, however, the DNC certified it anyway!

6. State Ballot Fail! It is the responsibility of each states' party head office to certify that their candidate is Constitutionally eligible to serve. Since Obama was not Constitutionally certified to run in the state of Hawaii in 2008, no other Secretary of State, in any state, ever confirmed that Obama was vetted by federal or party authorities in their state prior to being placed on the 2008 Presidential ballot there. In fact, nearly a dozen Secretaries of State, including Hawaii’s, have officially refused to reveal any information about the vetting of Barack Obama in their state.

7. PUMA: The First Birthers. In early summer, 2007, the so called “Birther” conspiracy theory was first created by renegade members of an ultra leftist group known as the PUMAs. (That’s right! They were leftists). They were a splinter group of hard-core Hillary Clinton supporters who did not want to surrender the Democrat party nomination to Obama after a hard fought campaign leading to the 2008 Democratic nomination. In June, 2008, PUMAParty.com began promoting the idea that their party’s nomination of Barack Obama could be overturned on constitutional grounds that he was not eligible to be president based on the fact that he may not be a natural born citizen. Thus, the Birther movement actually began in the minds of liberals, not “right-wing nuts” as Obama zealots love to claim.

8. Hawaiian Certi-Fiction. Shortly after PUMAparty.com began clamoring for a more thorough review of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, the image of a document containing sparse information about Obama’s alleged birth was posted on the internet by undisclosed sources, from an unknown origin. The image appeared on extreme leftwing websites like the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and later on two websites claiming to be non-partisan reviewers, Factcheck.org and politifact.com. One of the fact checking sites is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation from which the Chicago Annenberg Project received a large educational grant. Obama served as the chair on the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Project in 2002.

9. CertificaTION Of Identity, not Natural Birth. The 2008 document image was determined to be created by an unknown source from a digital template form of a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” which is a surrogate, independently published, municipal cover document issued to those applying for copies of birth certificates in the state of Hawaii since 2000. In response to Y2K system updates the State of Hawaii began migrating from paper copies of original birth records to digitally created printed documents. The state of Hawaii openly admits to changing its document format under the guise of preventing identity theft.

10. Cartoon Fun. In 2009, it was demonstrated by three separate document specialists that an image of the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” was easily constructed and falsely authenticated using two different medical imaging software programs. This demonstration discredited the State of Hawaii’s claims that its “Certification of Live Birth” provided better protection against identity theft than old paper copies of the Certificate of Live Birth.

11. Department of Hawaiian Native Homelands. The Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” was found to be so unreliable in clarifying the bearer’s legal and demographic identity that the State of Hawaii’s own Department of Native Homelands refused to accept it as a primary source of identification for its applicants seeking to purchase Hawaiian land reserved for genealogically native Hawaiians. Before 2010, the agency’s website stated:

"In order to process your application for identification as a native Hawaiian, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands utilizes information that is found only on the Original (Long Form) Vault Birth Certificate (‘Certificate of Live Birth’, not ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’), which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of birth than the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Long Form Birth Certificate will save you time and money since the computer-generated ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ requires additional verification…"

Only after it was determined that the Department of Hawaiian Homeland’s policy against the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” conflicted with another Hawaiian state agency, the Department of Health’s, political endorsement of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, was the policy changed and the wording against the credibility of the document scrubbed from its website. This led many to accuse the State of Hawaii government of selling out to protect against exposing the ineligibility of Obama rather than upholding the eligibility of thousands of potential native land owners in Hawaii. Some actually accused Hawaii’s land management of selling out to a liar while native Hawaiians were at risk of being deprived of their right to purchase native lands because non-natives could now use a less credible version of identification when applying for a land purchase.

12. Hawaii Denies COLB Image. After all was said and done, the State of Hawaii has refused to ever confirm that it issued the 2008 document image. In light of sophisticated, digitally based document imaging technology, the authenticity of the image remains highly questionable, especially without the official endorsement of the Hawaiian Health Department. Some independent reviewers have, unequivocally, determined the image to be a forgery.

13. The Million Dollar Birth Cerificate. On August 21, 2008, Philadelphia based attorney, Philip Berg, filed the first of several high profile cases attempting to force Obama to show authentic, legal, original documentation proving that he is eligible to be president of the U.S. Berg is a lifelong, registered Democrat with a history of running for Democratic office in Philadelphia. Following Berg’s case, other plaintiffs have filed similar suits including Alan Keyes and several military officers, all of which have been dismissed by irresponsible judges refusing to weigh the merits of evidence in the cases. Some judges have even gone on record as saying the reason they dismissed their case was because “Questions about Obama’s eligibility had already been answered on Twitter.” Since then, Obama has paid more than 1.6 million dollars to the Washington law firm, Perkins Coie to prevent the release of his original birth certificate, which costs about 20 dollars to order from the State of Hawaii.

14. Executive Order No. 13489. Obama was ensconced as President on January 20, 2009. Just one day after his inauguration, he signed Executive Order No. 13489 which essentially violates the Freedom of Information Act and prohibits the release of Obama’s personal and presidential records, during and after his presidency, by the National Archives without first being consulted by the National Archives Director and the Attorney General. Seven days later, Obama gave his famous “Transparency Will Be the Touchstone of This Administration" speech in which he hypocritically admonished previous administrations for what he feels are "too many secrets kept by government in Washington". Obama vowed to change how government deals with secret information by making his administration more open. Since this dishonest, landmark speech, the Administration has fought to keep Obama’s past secret more than any other President in American history.

15. LTC Terry Lakin. In April, 2008, after the fraudulent dismissal of more than two dozen civilian court cases which had been filed against Obama attempting to force him to produce original documented evidence of his natal identity, a highly decorated officer with more than 17 years of unblemished service in the U.S. Army brought the Obama eligibility into the active military ranks. Lieutenant Colonel, Dr. Terrence Lakin, an active duty flight surgeon serving the President's Chief of Staff and working as a commanding ranked physician of a critical care facility, refused to deploy for duty in Afghanistan under his legal right to refuse orders that he, as an officer, believes are illegal. According to Lakin, Barack Obama has not demonstrated provable, documented evidence that he is eligible to hold the office of President and is, therefore, not legally qualified to issue orders to the United States military as Commander In Chief. Lakin’s oath upon becoming an officer is to defend the constitution, not the president. His duty, as an officer to refuse deployment orders he believes are illegal, are legitimate based on clear and concise legal grounds. Despite this fact, however, Lakin pleaded guilty to a circus court under the command of the Obama administration’s military staff, and was sentence to six months in prison and dismissal from the service. He has since been lauded and exalted for his sacrifice and commitment to his duty to defend the Constitution. Supporters may contribute to his fund at http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/

16. The History Of Standard U.S. Certificates of Live Birth. As census and vital statistics documentation methods evolved, the U.S. Department of Health has utilized a document template with the header title, “Certificate of Live Birth” since the early 1900’s. The U.S. National Vital Statistics Division, since its first published data report in 1915, refers to the U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” as “The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, issued by the National Vital Statistics Division, has served for many years as the principal means of attaining uniformity in the content of the documents used to collect information on this vital event.” This document has evolved throughout a 110 year process with input from the National Conference on Vital Records and Statistics, the National Vital Statistics Division, The Census Bureau and the municipal state agencies assigned with the responsibility of gathering, storing and reporting natal statistics to the U.S. Department of Health. Although it has undergone state specific revisions to support municipal laws and identity protection, it is important to note that it has never undergone a reduction in vital data content.

17. Hawaii’s Rogue Document. The standard, U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” document template has been slightly revised by various states for the purpose of meeting identification and formatting needs, such as concealing the social security numbers of the parents. However, no state, except one, has ever reduced the overall quantity of information contained about the bearer’s natal identity, such that it is now impossible to determine their natural-born status, and then used that reduction of vital information in an endorsed document form. Only the State of Hawaii has created this form of independently published, digital documentation.

18. Hawaii Violates Federal Guidelines. In the entire 110 year history of the standard, official, federal, U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” document’s existence, only the state of Hawaii has gone astray from the standard version to such a degree that it actually conceals one’s full natal identity rather than reveals it. When comparing document forms, the use of the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is an unauthorized reduction of content otherwise prescribed to confirm the bearer’s natal identity and, essential to verifying one’s eligibility to be a candidate for president, the bearer’s natural born status.

19. Exploitation of Hawaii’s Lost Culture. Because of its remote, water-locked, geographic characteristics; its tumultuous indigenous history; and a vulnerable culture altered by a transference of sovereignty in the late 1800’s, the Hawaiian islands gained a reputation for maintaining a vague process for documenting immigration, vital events and indigenous population. Historical archives dating between 1890 and 1941 reveal that the Hawaiian Islands served as an unofficial, but widely pursued, sanctuary for thousands of foreign expatriates seeking protection from political persecution in China, Japan, Southeast Asiatic nations, the Middle East and, later, the United States. This multicultural instability resulted in the implementation of less than thorough procedures for recording and differentiating native born, immigrant and indigenous populations. One example of this surrogate nativity was granted to a Mr. Sun Yat Sen, a Chinese expatriate who received an official Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1904 stating that his birth had taken place in Hawaii in November, 1870. However, later evidence revealed that Mr. Sun’s birth had actually occurred in China in 1866. Archives reveal that the state of Hawaii has provided similar documentation to thousands of immigrants over the years without ever confirming their age, the birth place or their actual identity.This murky process was further complicated when Hawaii became a state of the U.S. which demanded that it begin implementing the federal documentation standards for U.S. citizens as well, in 1959. Vulnerabilities in Hawaii’s documentation process created passive conditions which allowed unidentified inhabitants to later proclaim any identity, or multiple identities, they desired to serve their individual interests.

20. Hawaii’s Communist Past. Based on investigations in the 1950’s and 1960’s, a disproportionate concentration of pro-communist activity became a part of Hawaiian culture. This is substantiated by an increase in the population and activity of communist sympathizers identified by the House Committee on Un-American Activities hearings conducted after WWII, during the beginning of the cold war between the U.S. and communist Russia. Evidence of pro-communist presence in Hawaii can be found in publications like the Honolulu Record in which one of Obama’s communist mentors, Frank Marshal Davis was a columnist. Obama Sr. would later return to Kenya sometime in the mid 1960’s to promote his communist economic theories and work in government with his friend and leader of Kenya’s communist KANU party, Tom Mboya.

21. Hawaiian Document Proven Deficient. In August, 2008, a former U.S. Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics Registrar stated that the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” cannot be considered an original birth certificate created at the time of occurrence of the birth because “…it does not contain the signature of the licensed medical professional qualified to determine the characteristics of a live birth in accordance with administrative requirements established by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division, and it does not contain the name and location of the hospital which issued the original record, which would be a U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” if the child was born in the United States.” Further investigation of Hawaii’s revised statutes reveal that the Hawaiian Department of Health not only contends with federal law, it also contradicts its own self-declared authority to issue falsified birth nativity under HRS 338-17.

22. Hawaii’s Permission To Violate Federal Law. Hawaii Revised Statute HRS 338-17.8 states:

“Certificates for children born out of State.(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”

The law permits anyone born to parents who claimed Hawaii as their residence within one year of their birth, at any time before or after the enactment of the law, regardless of the actual location of the birth, to receive an original birth record which states that the location of birth is Hawaii, and, therefore, occurred in the U.S. Hawaiian lawmakers have confirmed that the law is not constrained to the date of birth. It is applicable to the date of application for the certificate. This means this law would enable Obama, anytime after the age of 21 to apply for and receive a newly created original Hawaiian birth certificate after providing evidence that his mother or father merely resided in Hawaii for one year prior to his birth. He could have applied for this certificate any time since is parents are known to have resided in Hawaii since 1960. He could have been born outside of the U.S., however, the State of Hawaii is obligated by law to grant him an original birth certificate stating that Hawaii is his birth place simply because he was able to show that his parents claimed Hawaii as their residence. Moreover, the evidence provided with Obama’s application may not be reviewed by any third party under this law. Only the Director of the Department of Health is granted with the authority to determine the validity and deadlines required in providing such evidence. In essence, under Administrative Rule 91, the state of Hawaii has empowered a state-level, municipal employee to determine the federal, natural-born status and therefore, the Constitutional eligibility, of any individual, even a sworn enemy of the United States, seeking the most powerful office in the world.

23. Obama’s Own Words. On page 26 of his 1995 Autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama admits to possessing a copy of his original birth certificate in the late 1970’s. This document was a copy of an original vital record assumed to still be filed with the office of Vital Statistics in Hawaii. Why does Obama not still possess this copy and where is the original used to produce it?

24. Obama Loses Natural-Born U.S. Citizenship. Barack Obama claims to have lived in Indonesia with his mother from approximately 1967 to 1971 where he assumed the surname of his step father, Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. Since Obama became a citizen of Indonesia, he forfeited any claim he may have had to Natural-born citizenship in the U.S. Recall, a Natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is achieved by natural circumstances which, if unrevoked, make it impossible for them to have citizenship loyalties to any other governing power. If a Natural-born citizen becomes a citizen of another country at any time prior to running for the office of the president, he or she is no longer eligible. Because of this forfeiture, Obama is not eligible to be president because his Natural-born status cannot be reclaimed once legal or administrative procedures are employed to repatriate him in the U.S. Also, despite Obama’s claims that he remained in Indonesia during this time, there is photographic evidence placing him in Hawaii in 1969. Questions remain how and why Obama may have traveled to Hawaii at this time, including any documentation he used, which raises doubts about the validity of his origins narrative, and therefore, doubts about his identity.

25. What’s In a Name? Barry or Barack, Soetoro or Obama, or Subarkah? Records from his time in Indonesia reveal that Barack Obama has used at least one other alias and possibly two. He was registered for school under the name Barry Soetoro as a muslim student. When Obama applied for state bar license in 1992 to practice law in Illinois, the application asked if he had ever used an alias. He stated that he had not at that time. There is evidence that suggests Obama was not honest about his use of other names throughout his life. Recent passport application information submitted by his mother in the 1960’s reveals that Obama may have had a third surname of “Subarkah” which his mother had written on the application.

26. Dunham’s Secret Absence. Many records exist confirming Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii from late summer of 1960 until February of 1961. However, from February until September, 1961, there are no records or eyewitness accounts of her presence in Hawaii. In fact, the void is quite stark. Obama was allegedly born during this void of time in Dunham’s documented life. The next record indicating her possible location is a class registration record showing that she had enrolled in classes for fall term of 1961 at the University of Washington, just two weeks after allegedly giving birth to Obama in Hawaii.

27. Dunham Too Young To Confer Citizenship. Ann Dunham turned 19 years old in November, 1961, almost four months after Obama was allegedly born in August, 1961. Citizenship laws in effect in the U.S. in 1961 required the mother of a child born outside the U.S., to a foreign father, to have lived in the U.S. for 14 consecutive years, five of which had to be after the age of 14. Since Dunham had not yet turned 19, she was not legally able to confer citizenship to Obama if the birth occurred outside the U.S. Therefore, Obama is, at a minimum, a citizen of Great Britain. The founding fathers, in writing the eligibility mandate, having fought a Revolutionary War against Great Britain, would have rejected Obama as a presidential candidate for this reason.

28. Hospital Mystery. No official records have ever been provided from any authoritative source to prove that Barack Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children. As a testament to the longstanding controversy over Obama’s birth hospital, in the original ‘Early Life’ section of Barack Obama’s Wikipedia biography, beginning on March 3, 2004, it was stated that he was born in Queens Hospital. It was later clarified as Queens Medical Center. In 2006, it was omitted and remained blank until June, 2008 when editors stated that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center. On January 24, 2009, Kapi’olani Medical Center, on the occasion of the hospital’s centennial celebration, allegedly received a letter in which Obama wrote, “As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi’olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your voice of supporters.” It was later admitted by administrators at Kapi'olani that the letter was a facsimile created in a digital format. To date, no administrator, or official of the Obama administration has ever confirmed that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center.

29. Obama’s Use of Multiple Social Security Numbers. In 2010, Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John Sampson revealed that President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state. In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, not 1961 at the time of Obama’s birth. Moreover, Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins in Oahu, Hawaii. The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his SSN are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses and start with 040 through 049.

“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains, “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”

30. Obama’s Father Not a U.S. Citizen. Obama’s alleged father was a Kenyan national with citizenship in Great Britain. His birth registration is recorded in the British National Archives, General Register Office "Registers and Returns of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Protectorates of Africa and Asia, 1895-1965". Obama's children are also contained in these registers. He attended the University of Hawaii from 1959 to 1961 before abandoning Obama Jr. and Dunham to attend graduate school at Harvard in 1962. Since Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, it is impossible for Obama to be a natural-born citizen.

The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" which has been misrepresented as the federally accepted, official document issued by the state of Hawaii for Barack Obama's birth shows Obama's father's race as "African". Unfortunately, this term violates the U.S. Department of Health's acceptable classifications of race for official birth certificates. According to NVSD protocols, Obama Sr. is classified as a "Negro" in 1961, not "African". The term "African" is not even an option in the NVSD manual. Africa is a continent not a race. For example, there are white people from Africa, but they would not be categorized as "African". Using this premise, we could argue that Obama's Certification of Live Birth should also list his mother's race as "North American"? If using geographic association in describing Obama's mother's race is so ridiculous, why is it acceptable to explain his father's?

The use of the term "African" to describe the race of Obama's father is yet another diminishment to the credibility and authenticity of Obama's natal records. The inclusion of such a non-specific, vague, unclassifiable, misrepresentative term to describe an individual's demography only raises yet more doubts about the ability of the Hawaiian Health Department to convey accurate vital statisics documentation.

31. Obama Marriage Mystery. To date, no documented evidence exists proving that a legal marriage between Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham ever occurred in the U.S. The two were allegedly married in Hawaii in early 1961, after Obama Jr. was allegedly conceived sometime in November, 1960. However, no public announcement, or eyewitness of the marriage or marriage license has ever been found.

In Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father”, he states, “In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky. A bill of particulars I have never quite had the courage to explore. There is no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No family members were in attendance. It is not even clear that people back in Kansas were even informed."

Obama's admission that 'There is no record of a real wedding', raises yet another doubt about his long disseminated, life biography with regard to the status of the relationship between his parents. The unanswered questions about his parents marriage contradicts the accuracy of testimony and records declaring Obama's identity, such as his birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers which undeniably state that his parents were married, and divorce documents which do not contain any reference to a legal marriage license. There are fundamental questions about the relationship between Obama's parents which no one has been able to answer. If they were married in Hawaii, what is the name of the officiate presiding at the wedding? Where did it take place? Does the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office possess a copy of the Obama's marriage license which they used to determined their marital status for the birth announcements? If so, why was the Obama marriage never announced in those same papers? Why was the wedding kept secret? Was the marriage even legal given the evidence that Obama Sr. was already married to a woman in Kenya?

32. Divorce Decree and Custody Documents. In 2009, a set of what appears to be authentic document images of a Divorce Decree shows that Stanley Ann Dunham was awarded an uncontested divorce from Obama Sr. in March, 1964. The Divorce was granted in a Hawaiian civil Court on March 5, 1964 after a hearing to determine custody rights of the parents of Barack Obama Jr. According to the document images, Dunham had filed for divorce in January, 1964. The set of documents posted on the internet in 2009 are suspiciously missing the official birth certificate of Barack Obama Jr. which was requested by the court in order to confirm parentage.

33. Obama Sr. Already Married. Obama’s father was apparently a bigamist. He was allegedly already married to a woman in Kenya when he allegedly married Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Obama’s other wife’s name was Kezia Aoko (also found as other spellings). This would nullify any marriage to Dunham because it is illegal in the U.S. to be married to more than one person.

34. Suspicious Death. Obama Sr. died in 1982 after an alleged car accident. Recent investigations into his death reveal unanswered questions about his declining professional status and his strained relationship with his friend, Tom Mboya after he published a scathing report called, “The Problem with Our Socialism”, criticizing Mboya’s economic development plan for Kenya.

35. Birth Announcements. In early 2009, researchers discovered announcements of Obama’s birth in two separate Honolulu-based news papers. An investigation of the procedures used to publish birth announcements reveals that the information used by the news papers came directly from the Hawaiian Department of Health’s bi-weekly birth registration lists. These birth announcements are typically published for registrations over a two week period and do not contain the location of the birth. The announcements always assume, without exception, that the parents are married, despite the fact that the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Vol. 1 – Natality” reveals that of the 17,616 births in Hawaii in 1961, there were 1044 illegitimate births in which the father was not identifiable. An average of three per day!

In every case, without exception, both papers publish all announcements with the surname of the father as if they are always married and with the assumption that two parents always exist at the time of birth, even when the father is dead. The announcements do not publish the first names of the parents or child, nor do they identify the name of the registrant. They publish the sex of the child, the address of the registrant and the day and month of the birth. The announcements do not print the location of the birth, the name of the attending physician, the name of the hospital, the time of birth or the given name of the child.

36. The Paper Chase. An analysis of all of the birth announcements published along with Obama’s announcements in both newspapers reveals that both papers published the exact same announcements, including quantity of birth announcements, in the same exact order and in the same exact contextual format in both papers. The announcements are not published in alphabetical or chronological order which begs the question: What system was used to determine their order? They are obviously not randomly ordered since they appear in the same order in both papers. The possible answer: Geographic birth registration numbering. An investigation of the U.S. Department of Health’s archived natal data reports reveals that birth registration numbers are assigned based on the location of the registration office they are received in.

37. Obama’s Other Address. The birth announcements were published containing the registrant’s address at 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., Honolulu, HI. This address has been proven by investigators to be the residence of Obama’s grandparents, Stanley and Madeline Dunham, as well as Obama’s mother. Directory records available in 1961 show that Obama’s father, Obama Sr., resided in an apartment at 625 11th Avenue, near the University of Hawaii. Why would a married man list an address for the birth of his son that was not his address?

38. Birth Registration Protocols. An investigation reveals that birth registration numbers are assigned based on their associated location to the regional vital statistics registration office in which the vital event is recorded. There were four such offices available in Hawaii in 1961, two of which served immigration processing and vital events originating outside the Hawaiian Islands. Obama’s alleged birth registration number, 151-1961-010641, indicates that his birth was registered in one of these regional offices.

39. Non-Sequential Birth Registration. Obama’s birth registration number appears to be non-sequential with other births recorded at the time of his birth. One example cites the standard “Certificate of Live Birth” records of twins born to Eleanor Nordyke, whose births occurred 19 hrs after Obama’s alleged birth in Kapi’olani Medical Center. The twins were assigned birth registration numbers ending in 037 and 038, respectively. Obama’s birth was assigned number 041 despite the fact that his birth allegedly occurred before the twins in the very same hospital. If no other births occurred between Obama’s and the Nordyke’s, one would expect that Obama’s birth registration number would end in 036, not 041. If other births did occur in the 19 hours between Obama’s and the Nordykes’, Obama’s registration number would be expected to be even lower.
40. Chiyome Fukino. On October 31st, 2008, and, again on July 27th, 2009, the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health released the only two official statements by the government of the State of Hawaii about Obama’s natal records. In her October, 2008 statement she release the following:

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

The statement does not specify the type of original birth certificate on record and directly contradicts statements made by an official of the Hawaiian elections Office that the State of Hawaii does not possess an original birth certificate for Obama. Fukino further clarified her statement eight months later with the following:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

The problem with this second statement is, first, she, again, does not identify the title of the “original vital records” documents she has seen. Notice she uses the word “records”, plural. Whether they are a U.S. Certificate of Live Birth, a Delayed Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Foreign Birth accompanied with testimonial documents, medical records or other evidence is not disclosed by Fukino.

Second, she violated Hawaii’s identity protection law, the very same HRS 338-18 she cited in her first statement, by disclosing information from the vital records about Obama’s unverified birth place. If she is so willing to provide this private information, why not disclose the rest of it? Answer: Because this information serves the bias of the State of Hawaii's endorsement of Obama's legitimacy. Otherwise, Fukino would also disclose the other information that perhaps is NOT so favorable to Obama, as well, such as the title of the 'original vital records' or whether the certificate had been amended.

Third, and most grievous, as a state-level, municipal employee way out in the State of Hawaii, Fukino neither has the federal authority, nor the qualifications to determine the Natural-born status of a candidate for federal office. In fact, Fukino's audacious, bizarre proclamation is laughable and only exposes the State of Hawaii's fragile confidence in their documentation procedures, let alone its ability to declare the historical meaning of Natural-born citizenship. That job falls under the federal authority of the Secret Service, the State Department in coordination with the state Elections Offices.

41. Hawaii’s Amazing Legitimate Birth Rate. Both papers also published the nearly two dozen announcements assuming that every child was born to married parents living at the same address, despite the fact that the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Vol. 1 – Natality” shows that there were 1044 illegitimate births in Hawaii in 1961 in which the father was not identifiable. This is an average of three illegitimate births per day! Over the nine day period of births covered by the announcements in these two issues, one would expect to see at least one single mother, or unmarried couple, giving birth among the more than two dozen announcements surrounding Obama’s birth from late July to early August, 1961. In fact, a review of every issue of the newspapers in the entire year of 1961 shows that all birth announcements were published by “married parents”. If the newspapers indeed printed accurate announcements based on testimony from the actual parents or family members there should be some information which does not conform to this cookie-cutter identical format when comparing each announcement between newspapers. However, the rigidity of the format, and the possibility of inaccuracies, led investigators to conclude that the originating information used to publish birth announcements in 1961 was not conveyed from the parents or family directly to the newspapers, but instead was first processed by a single municipal source, before being provided to the news papers. Therefore, since we know Hawaii registers foreign births as being native births, the announcements would be published without the location of the birth, or marital status of the parents, as a consideration. This then would suggest that if there is any inaccuracy originating with the source information, which occurs in the transference between the registrant and the municipal authority, the newspapers would never see the necessity to confirm the accuracy of the information. Why would a newspaper take official information certified from a government agency in the form of a list and then expend resources to get a second opinion about its accuracy from the original registrant? They wouldn’t. The newspapers print announcements without ever knowing if they are accurate or not when the information comes from the local municipal authority. Therefore, since the municipal authority does not create its birth list discerning between native birth and foreign birth registrations it employs the policy of only publishing the address of the registrant, not the location of the birth. Since the municipal authority treats all births as legitimate, by default, it would construct the birth registration list as though the parents are married in every announcement and submit the list to the newspapers who would publish what appears to be all local, native births to married couples. The problem with this flawed procedure is that the announcements are not an accurate account of the actual facts of the natal event. Unfortunately, there is no legal requirement that a birth announcement in a newspaper must match the metrics of an official birth certificate.

42. The Welfare of Baby Obama. Upon analyzing the procedures used to publish birth announcements, we discover vulnerabilities in the assumptions about the accuracy and content of the birth announcements. With a simple explanation, it becomes much more reasonable to assume that Obama’s birth announcements were never a part of some crazy-minded conspiracy but, instead, were simply the result of being included in the Hawaiian Health Departments birth registration lists after Obama’s birth was registered by Obama’s grandparents, more than likely, for the simple reason of making sure their daughter and grandson could receive state benefits as resident citizens of the U.S. Obama’s grandparents were indeed residing at the published address found in the announcements. However, ignorant, hostile Obama supporters enjoy the opportunity to claim that so-called “birthers” believe a conspiracy of such magnitude that Obama’s birth announcements were planted in the Hawaiian papers in 1961 just in case Obama might run for president some day. This is a ridiculous canard. Only a blind ideologue would fail to realize that birth announcements do not verify Constitutional eligibility in the first place. Therefore, both sides of the argument, either lauding birth announcements or ridiculing them, as a viable part of any conspiracy to promote the legitimacy of Obama is idiotic. If Obama's birth announcements were not automatically conveyed by the registrar, they were more than likely submitted in collaboration with his mother or grandparents as a practical matter in order to simply share the news of Obama's birth with the community and to, possibly, act to secure Obama’s eligibility for welfare and baby formula, not a nomination to the presidency. However, without publishing the identity of the registrant, the editors of the newspapers printed all of the week’s announcements based on typically practiced protocols after receiving the official birth lists from the Hawaiian Department of Health. There was nothing premeditated or fraudulent about this. Municipal laws were followed and journalistic standards were correctly assumed considering the official source in the newspapers’ view. The possible breakdown in accuracy occurred as a result of the Department of Health’s legal ability to include foreign births in the Hawaiian birth registration lists and the registrant omitting birth location information, while the papers did not print it any way.

43. Obama’s Secret Natal Data. According to the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of theU.S. Volume 1 – Natality”, natal statistics were harvested using a “50% sampling method” and, furthermore, statistics were taken only from “even-numbered birth records” in 1961. Since Obama’s birth registration was allegedly an odd number, his unique natal statistics would remain ureported by the State of Hawaii, and unpublished as part of the U.S. Department of Health's annual natal data report. This is relative in the fact that, since Obama was a bi-racial, (categorized as non-white) baby allegedly born to an 18-year old, white mother and a non-white, non-citizen father, in an urban hospital in Hawaii in August of 1961, his natal statistics would be extremely notable and rare for this time and place. In fact, statistics show that less than 1 in 20000 births occurred under these circumstances within the demographic classifications used by the National Vital Statistics Division in 1961. The unconventional circumstances surrounding Obama's birth are very conspicuous.

44. No Witnesses of Obama’s Birth Still Alive. To date, no living eyewitness of Obama birth exists. It is assumed that his birth was witnessed by at least three people including his doctor and his mother. However, no documentation of the birth has been provided containing the name of the doctor or eyewitnesses.

45. Obama’s Radicalism. Obama has lived a life wrought with radicalism. In his book, “Dreams From My Father”, Obama writes, “…I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

In the late 1970’s a teenaged Barack Obama met Frank Marshall Davis while the two were both living in Hawaii. Davis, an avowed member of the Communist Party and one of the era’s poetic pioneers of fierce anti-American radicalism, developed a paternal-like relationship with Obama, which Obama acknowledges in his book, “Dreams From My Father”. The 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) member. Obama has maintained lasting relationships with radicals throughout his entire life. He worked with ACORN activist and chapter leader, Madeline Talbott in 1992. He had a close personal relationship with domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers and served with Ayers on the board of the Woods Foundation, a radical Chicago-based education activism organization. Obama attended a church for 20 years where radical pastor, Jeremiah Wright, still maintains an anti-American ministry under the guise of Black Liberation Theology. As the Obama presidency rampaged through its first year, Senior Environmental Advisor, Van Jones, resigned in early September, 2009 amidst a firestorm of controversy over his criminal and communist past. Then, in November, Anita Dunn resigned her position as White House Communications Director when video surfaced which exposed her as being in favor of the communist philosophy of Chinese dictator and mass murderer, Mao Tse Tung. Dunn admitted her communist inclinations in a speech to a group of high school students.

46. The Deaths of Lt. Quarles Harris and Donald Young. Quarles Harris was a key witness in a federal probe into charges that Obama’s passport information was stolen from the State Department, when he was fatally shot in front of a Washington D.C. church. Harris had been working as a contractor at the State Department and was cooperating with federal investigators when he was murdered. In December, 2007, Donald Young was a choir leader at Obama’s church, First Trinity Baptist, and school teacher, who many believe had carnal knowledge of Obama’s past. Young was found shot to death in his Southside Chicago apartment.

47. Larry Sinclair’s Bizarre Story. Of all the sordid stories circulating about Obama’s past, the one told by Larry Sinclair is the darkest. Sinclair posted a YouTube video alleging that he and President Barack Obama engaged in sexual acts and drug use together in 1999, when Obama was an Illinois State Senator. He claims that then-State Senator Obama procured powdered cocaine for Sinclair, and crack cocaine for himself, which Obama allegedly smoked. Sinclair also alleges that their drug use was followed by sex acts that included Sinclair performing fellatio on Obama. These acts were alleged to take place in a limousine from which Sinclair provided cell phone records to prove his location on the dates in question. Testimony from the limosine driver has never been publicly published. Sinclair was asked to provide "intimate details" about Obama's physical features which would prove Sinclair's claims. His testimony has never been published or made public. Sinclair confesses openly that he is a convicted felon having served time for check fraud and drug possession. Sinclair repeated his claims about his relationship with Obama in a highly publicized press conference at the National Press Club on June 18, 2008.

48. Passport Documents Released. Documents released in July, 2010, and posted on the Scribd.com website, show that Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, applied for a passport in 1981, the same year Obama traveled to Pakistan. Dunham’s applications show that she had applied for and received three separate passports and a renewal between 1965 and 1981. However, in yet another example of convenient government complicity to obscure Obama’s actual past, the Hillary Clinton-led State Department claims that a General Services Administration directive in the 1980s resulted in the destruction of passport applications and other "non-vital" passport records, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for, or held, prior to 1965. The released records also document that on Aug. 13, 1968, Ann Dunham applied to have her 1965-issued passport renewed for two years, until July 18, 1970. The documents also reveal yet another possible name used to identify Barack Barry Hussein Obama Soetoro. According to the application for Dunham’s 1976 passport she uses the parenthetical name of (saebarkah), or perhaps “Subarkah”, which is a surname commonly found among Indonesian citizenry. The existence of records of a passport or travel documents prior to 1965 would reveal information on Dunham’s circumstances at the time of Obama’s birth. Therefore, we can now add Ann Dunham’s original passport to the litany of records and documents now missing from Obama’s biographical history.

49. Tim Adams. In July, 2010, Tim Adams, a senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu Elections Office in 2008, made the stunning claim Barack Obama definitely was not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains, based on information he was told by the Vital Statistics office in Hawaii that there is no original birth record on file for Barack Obama. In a televised interview, Adams reported that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist in the Aloha State. Adams' statements conflicted directly with repeated affirmations by public officials in Hawaii that they had seen or had inspected Obama's birth records that would document his representations that he was born in the state."There is no birth certificate," said Adams after leaving his position with the Elections Office and now teaches English at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this. I managed the absentee-ballot office. It was my job to verify the voters' identity.

50. Hawaiian Governor Offended. In December, 2010, newly elected Hawaiian Democratic governor, Neil Abercrombie proclaimed that he is undertaking an effort, in consultation with the Hawaiian Attorney General, to make Obama’s original birth documentation available to the public. In making his proclamation, Abercrombie claims that since he was a friend of the Obama’s during their attendance at the University of Hawaii and thereafter, he is personally offended by accusation from doubters that the Obama’s were involved in nefarious dealings with regard to Obama’s natal identity. Abercrombie said he also feels it is disrespectful to the office of the presidency to question Obama’s eligibility. Despite being an alleged friend of the Obama family, Abercrombie was not invited to the couple’s alleged Hawaiian wedding in 1961, nor was he present at the alleged 1961 Hawaiian birth of Obama.

In response to Abercrombie’s proclamations, both Fox and MSNBC, while reporting on the story, admitted for the first time that Obama had not yet released an original version of his official, 1961, federal, U.S. Certificate of Live Birth signed by the attending physician bearing the name and seal of the hospital.

This story is never going to go away until Obama simply stops the deception and comes clean with the American people about his secret past.